- Email: [email protected]
A survey of dental journal methodological practices
Original Contributions
A survey of dental journal methodological practices Reporting guidelines and ethical policies Natália Cristina Ruy Carneiro, MSc, Phd candidate; Heloisa Vieira Prado, MSc, Phd candidate; Tahyná Duda Deps Almeida, MSc, Phd candidate; Isabela Almeida Pordeus, DDS, MSc, PhD; Ana Cristina Borges-Oliveira, DDS, MSc, PhD; Carolina Castro Martins, DDS, MSc, PhD ABSTRACT Background. The authors evaluated instructions for author norms among existing dental journals and analyzed whether these journals address the practice of reporting guidelines and ethics policies. Methods. The authors evaluated 87 journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (Thomson Reuters). The authors extracted information regarding the journals from the Journal Citation Reports database and from the instructions for authors of each journal. The authors conducted bivariate analysis to compare the methodological policy issues of journals with higher and those with lower impact factors ( 1.452 and 1.436, respectively). Results. Among journals, 44 (50.6%) required the use of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, 22 (25.3%) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, 21 (24.1%) Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments, 17 (19.5%) STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology, 6 (6.9%) Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, 3 (3.4%) Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and 1 (1.1%) Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials. No journals required STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies. Journals with higher impact factors had more instructions related to the peer review process (P ¼ .027), redundant publication (P < .001), authorship policy (P ¼ .024), contributorship policy (P < .001), ethical conduct of biomedical research with human participants (P ¼ .021), ethical conduct of biomedical research with nonhuman participants (P ¼ .001), registration of clinical trials (P ¼ .004), and conflicts involving editors as authors in their own journals (P < .001) than did journals with lower impact factors. The submission of clinical case studies was significantly more prevalent in journals with lower impact factors (P ¼ .008). Conclusions. Journals with higher impact factors have more rules regarding publication policies. Practical Implications. Journals with higher impact factors are stricter regarding publication policies than are journals with lower impact factors. Authors should be careful with the instructions for authors and plan studies with high methodological quality to publish their studies in a scientific journal. Key Words. Guideline adherence; ethics; epidemiology; dentistry.
JADA 2018:n(n):n-n https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2018.08.008
E
thical policies are important to ensuring the credibility and the transparency of scientific journals.1 The Declaration of Helsinki states that studies should be approved by an independent research ethics committee and that researchers should seek informed consent from participants.2,3 The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics have addressed these principles and developed some recommendations to review best practices and ethical standards in the conduct and reporting of research.3-5 The ICMJE encourages authors to follow ethical recommendations, although it lacks the authority to monitor them. Therefore, ethical recommendations should be used in conjunction with a
JADA n(n)
n
http://jada.ada.org
n
n 2018
Copyright ª 2018 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
1
journal’s instructions for authors.4 In 2011, Navaneetha6 suggested that journals should improve ethical policies in their instructions for authors, considering the importance of these ethical aspects to scientific publications. However, only 45.2% of dental journals required approval from an ethics committee, and only 32.5% of journals expected authors to state that they had conducted research according to the Declaration of Helsinki.6 Reporting guidelines also are tools that help improve the quality of medical and health research. Typically presented in the form of a checklist, flowchart, or explicit text, these guidelines specify the essential items necessary for the clear and transparent description of the research performed and its results.7,8 Such guidelines are based on empirical evidence and reflect the consensus opinions of experts. Moreover, reporting guidelines provide instructions for authors regarding scientific writing and the organization of manuscripts.7 In total, more than 200 different reporting guidelines are listed in the EQUATOR Network (http://www.equator-network.org/), an international database that seeks to improve the reliability and value of published health research literature. According to results in the literature, the impact factors of journals are associated directly with their ethics requirements.9-12 Therefore, journals with higher-quality editorial standards are believed to admit better designed articles that follow strict criteria at the beginning of the research.13 Therefore, given the findings that ethical issues and reporting guidelines are important methodological tools, it is important to understand how dental journals conduct their editorial policies. Our aim in this study was to evaluate the instructions for authors of dental journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) (Thomson Reuters) and to report whether these journals address the practice of reporting guidelines and ethics policies according to their impact factor. METHODS In this original study, we evaluated all dental journals indexed in the JCR database. This database presents bibliometric indicators of scientific journals.
ABBREVIATION KEY ARRIVE: Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments. CONSORT: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. ICMJE: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JCR: Journal Citation Reports. NA: Not applicable. PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. STROBE: STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology.
2
Search strategy We performed an electronic search of the JCR database in 2018 by searching on the terms dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine. Initially, we found 90 dentistry journals indexed. We generated a list of the indexed journals and excluded journals not electronically available and those not in English. Two of us (N.C.R.C., H.V.P.) then extracted journal information independently; the researchers were trained previously to extract data according to a structured data form (described later). The calibration process consisted of analyzing the first sequential 25 journals indexed in JCR. Observed k test scores ranged from 0.854 to 0.977, which is considered to be a good level of agreement.14 The researchers resolved disagreements by means of discussion and consensus. When they reached good agreement (k > 0.8), the researchers independently extracted information from the remaining journals. The 2 researchers checked any divergence regarding items extracted and subsequently resolved the divergence by means of discussion and consensus. Data extraction We created a form (Excel, Microsoft) to extract the information. We extracted information regarding journals from the JCR database, which we followed by analyzing the online guidelines or instructions for authors. Data collected from the JCR Web site included journal name, total citations, impact factor, impact factor over the past 5 years, volumes published per year, country, and geographic location. After extracting the information from JCR, we electronically searched each journal and analyzed the guidelines or instructions for authors. We also analyzed any ethics policy content presented in the guidelines or instructions for authors of each journal. We then compiled a list of the most important ethical themes on the basis of the study by Broga and colleagues,15 which involved a checklist from the International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications and guidelines for ethical publication from ICMJE, World Association of Medical Editors, and Committee on Publication Ethics. We extracted ethics policies from the guidelines or instructions for authors of each journal. We grouped them into the following categories: endorsement of international standards, peer review process, redundant publication, authorship policy, contributorship policy, conflicts of interest, JADA n(n)
n
http://jada.ada.org
n
n 2018
requirements for the disclosure of sources of financial support, requirements for the ethical conduct of biomedical research with human and nonhuman participants, ethical review by an institutional review board, mandatory registration of clinical trials, privacy rights and confidentiality statements, copyright or license to publish, image manipulation, and conflicts of editors as authors in their own journals.15 In addition, we extracted whether the journal requested the authors to use 1 of the following guidelines: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT); STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies; STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE); Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA); Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials; Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology; and Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE). Moreover, we identified reference to the EQUATOR Network (http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/) as a source of information for reporting guidelines. Finally, we extracted any other possible guidelines if the journal required them. We grouped the types of articles accepted for publication into several categories. These categories were original articles (epidemiologic studies, observational cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, cohort studies, clinical trials), systematic reviews, laboratory studies or studies in animals, literature reviews, clinical cases or case series, letters to the editor, and editorials. When additional data were required, or if they were not available in the guidelines or instructions for authors, we searched in other sections of the journal Web site until we found the necessary information. Apart from the guidelines or instructions for authors, other analyzed sections included “About this journal” and “Journal menu.” Data analysis We analyzed data by using software (SPSS for Windows, Version 23.0, SPSS), and we performed a descriptive analysis. We used a bivariate analysis through c2 testing (P < .05) to determine the relationship between exposure (impact factor) and the independent variables. We grouped journals into those with higher or lower impact factors ( 1.452 and 1.436, respectively). We determined the cutoff point by using the median of all journals because the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test result showed that journal impact factor does not follow a normal distribution (P < .05). RESULTS Among the 90 dentistry journals previously identified in the JCR database, we excluded 3 from the study: 1 had no Web site available, and the other 2 were not in English. As a result, all journals (n ¼ 87) included in our study provided online instructions for authors and used an online submission system for processing manuscripts. Overall, 45 journals (51.7%) had impact factors higher than 1.452 (on a scale of 0.423 to 4.794). Regarding the requirement of reporting guidelines, 44 journals (50.6%) required the use of CONSORT, 22 (25.3%) PRISMA, 21 (24.1%) ARRIVE, 17 (19.5%) STROBE, 6 (6.9%) Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, 3 (3.4%) Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, 1 (1.1%) Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials; no journals required STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies. We also observed that 11 of the included journals (12.6%) provided directions for using the EQUATOR Network site as an option for consulting other existing guidelines. Table 115 presents the endorsement of ethical policies according to the impact factor of journals included in our study. We observed a statistically significant difference in the presence of ethical policies in journals with higher impact factors. Furthermore, peer review process (P ¼ .027), redundant publication (P < .001), authorship policy (P ¼ .024), contributorship policy (P < .001), ethical conduct of biomedical research with human participants (P ¼ .021), ethical conduct of biomedical research with nonhuman participants (P ¼ .001), registration of clinical trials (P ¼ .004), and conflicts regarding editors as authors in their own journals (P < .001) were more prevalent in journals with higher impact factors (Table 1).15 Table 2 presents the types of studies accepted for review and the impact factors of included dentistry journals. All journals accepted the submission of original articles and systematic reviews. Clinical cases were significantly more prevalent in journals with lower impact factors (P ¼ .008). JADA n(n)
n
http://jada.ada.org
n
n 2018
3
Table 1. Ethics policies and impact factors of dentistry journals (Journal Citation Reports) (n ¼ 87). IMPACT FACTOR GREATER IMPACT FACTOR THAN OR EQUAL TO LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.452 NO. (%) 1.436 NO. (%) P VALUE†
ETHICS POLICY* Endorsement of International Standards‡ Yes
25 (55.6)
25 (59.5)
No
20 (44.4)
17 (40.5)
38 (84.4)
7 (15.6)
27 (64.3)
15 (35.7)
35 (77.8)
10 (22.2)
17 (40.5)
25 (59.5)
Yes
39 (86.7)
28 (66.7)
No
6 (13.3)
14 (33.3)
Yes
37 (82.2)
17 (40.5)
No
8 (17.8)
25 (59.5)
43 (95.6)
36 (85.7)
2 (4.4)
6 (14.3)
Yes
30 (66.7)
31 (73.8)
No
15 (33.3)
11 (26.2)
Yes
40 (88.9)
29 (69.0)
No
5 (11.1)
13 (31.0)
38 (84.4)
22 (52.4)
7 (15.6)
20 (47.6)
Yes
35 (77.8)
32 (76.2)
No
10 (22.2)
10 (23.8)
Yes
34 (75.6)
19 (45.2)
No
11 (24.4)
.438
Peer Review Process§ Yes No Redundant Publication
{
Yes No Authorship Policy
.027
< .001
#
.024
Contributorship Policy** < .001
Conflicts of Interest†† Yes No Disclosure of Sources of Financial Support
.112
‡‡
.312
Ethical Conduct of Biomedical Research With Human Participants§§ .021
Ethical Conduct of Biomedical Research With Nonhuman Participants{{ Yes No Ethics Committee Approval
.001
##
.531
Registration of Clinical Trials*** .004
23 (54.8)
* Ethical policies followed the criteria of the study by Broga and colleagues, as listed for each policy. † c2 test (5% significance level). ‡ Explicit statement of the journal’s conformance with international editorial standards. § General information about the process of evaluating manuscripts and a summary of the peer review process. { Policy on article submissions in print or electronic media and policy on how such occurrences are handled. # Policy or definition of authorship, including ethical position on ghost and gift authorship. ** Clear rules on the declaration of contributorship of each coauthor. †† Disclosure policy of financial and personal relationships that could influence (bias) actions inappropriately. ‡‡ Statement in the journal instructions about institutions and grants supporting the publication. §§ Statement of ethical biomedical research with human participants. {{ Statement of ethical biomedical research with nonhuman participants. ## Statement that submitted articles must state whether the study received approval from a relevant ethics committee. *** Statement on mandatory registration of clinical trials. ††† Policy on proper use of personal identifiable information. ‡‡‡ Instructions regarding assignment of copyright or license to publish. §§§ Instructions and requirements regarding processing digital images and policy for addressing image manipulation. {{{ Policy on how the journal manages research in which the editor is an author. 15
4
JADA n(n)
n
http://jada.ada.org
n
n 2018
Table 1. Continued IMPACT FACTOR GREATER IMPACT FACTOR THAN OR EQUAL TO LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.452 NO. (%) 1.436 NO. (%) P VALUE†
ETHICS POLICY* Privacy Rights††† Yes
25 (55.6)
15 (35.7)
No
20 (44.4)
27 (64.3)
Yes
39 (86.7)
36 (85.7)
No
6 (13.3)
6 (14.3)
Yes
38 (84.4)
33 (78.6)
No
7 (15.6)
9 (21.4)
.050
Copyright License‡‡‡ .571
Image Manipulation§§§ .334
Conflicts of Editors as Authors in Own Journals{{{ Yes
23 (51.1)
4 (9.5)
No
22 (48.9)
38 (90.5)
< .001
DISCUSSION We chose JCR for searching dental journals because it is an international database that allows researchers to evaluate and compare journals according to citations and article counts. Investigators can use such bibliometric data to evaluate the impact of the articles present in each journal, as well as the overall performance of each journal.16,17 Furthermore, all journals had their own Web sites wherein publication norms were available and accessible for authors. On the basis of our findings, the presence of peer review, redundant publication, authorship and contributorship policy, the ethical conduct of biomedical research with human and nonhuman participants, registration of clinical trials, and conflicts of editors as authors were associated statistically with journals that had high impact factors. Ethical policies are essential for health publications because they are considered to be a means of enhancing the reporting quality of biomedical studies.18 The ICMJE also recommends these domains to create more accurate, clear, reproducible, and unbiased journal articles.19 Peer review is an important process in the assessment of manuscript quality and suitability before publication in a specific journal. This process also prevents the publication of unreliable data, thereby improving study reporting.20 Generally, high-level scientific journals adopt this system,21 which corroborates the results of our study. Reviewers have a great responsibility to provide constructive and useful comments to a study, which is why it is important that journals clearly state how the peer review process occurs in their instruction for authors. It can inform authors that the review process will be conducted in a transparent and impartial way, without any personal influence from the reviewers. An additional aspect raised by the results of our study concerns redundant publication. The results suggest that this ethical issue is more present in journals with higher impact factors. According to Nogueira and colleagues,22 redundant publication and plagiarism are reported more commonly in articles published by journals with fewer than 2.0 cites per document. It is thought that journals with lower impact factors do not use software routinely to detect plagiarism and redundant publication and that journals with higher impact factors prevent the replication of texts. Therefore, readers and reviewers should be aware that a text or article may be original or simply a replication of another article. If this occurs, authors should be instructed to provide a clear statement or a reference that a specific article is being republished. According to the results of our study, journals with higher impact factors had more policies related to authorship and contributorship. In a study in which the investigators used a methodology similar to that of our study, they analyzed 600 random journals from JCR. The authors searched for information about author or contributor or journal policies and determined that journals that had an authorship policy had a significantly higher mean impact factor (2.20) than did those without a policy (1.43; P ¼ .006). Authorship (99.7%) and contributorship (94.7%) were the most frequent JADA n(n)
n
http://jada.ada.org
n
n 2018
5
Table 2. Requested types of studies and impact factors of dentistry journals (Journal Citation Reports) (n ¼ 87).
REQUESTED TYPES OF STUDIES
IMPACT FACTOR IMPACT FACTOR GREATER THAN OR LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO EQUAL TO 1.452, NO. (%) 1.436, NO. (%) P VALUE*
Original Articles† Yes
45 (100.0)
42 (100.0)
No
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
Yes
45 (100.0)
42 (100.0)
No
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
Yes
43 (95.6)
42 (100.0)
No
2 (4.4)
0 (0.0)
Yes
30 (66.7)
33 (78.6)
No
15 (33.3)
9 (21.4)
Yes
26 (57.8)
35 (83.3)
No
19 (42.2)
7 (16.7)
Yes
28 (62.2)
26 (61.9)
No
17 (37.8)
16 (38.1)
Yes
13 (28.9)
7 (16.7)
No
32 (71.1)
35 (83.3)
NA‡
Systematic Reviews NA
Laboratory Studies and Studies in Animals .265
Literature Reviews .158
Clinical Cases .008
Letters to the Editor .575
Editorials .136
* c test (5% significance level). † Includes epidemiologic cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, cohort studies, and clinical trials. ‡ NA: Not applicable. 2
policy types.11 Furthermore, authorship and contributorship also play a relevant role in ethics policies, which can improve the accuracy, fairness, and transparency of author listings.23 Dental journals that provide clear instructions for authors regarding the ethical conduct of biomedical research with human and nonhuman participants also tended to have higher impact factors, which may be due to the greater exigency and rigor of the publication process of such journals.13 Mathur and colleagues24 analyzed editorial instructions related to ethical requirements for authors in Indian and British dental journals and determined that a marked proportion of these journals did not provide information about ethical issues related to research involving humans and animals. Consequently, the authors concluded that it should be mandatory to report this information in the instructions for authors to ensure that these types of policies were followed, attesting that no misconduct occurred. Addressing conflicts of interest in scientific publications has become common.25 However, conflicts of interest between journal reviewers and editors are equally important because these groups control decisions regarding the publication of articles and content of publications, thereby having an enormous effect on the scientific literature.25 Furthermore, editors of medical journals have expressed that requiring clinical trial registration is the most valuable method for securing unbiased research reports26 because it allows for the identification of outcome bias or other deviations from the study protocol.26,27 In our study, we determined that dental journals with higher impact factors had more policies regarding the registration of clinical trials. Therefore, such journals may have greater demands regarding bias control and the methodological quality of their manuscripts. The CONSORT statement was the most common reporting guideline journal requested. Clinical trials are considered the reference standard for evaluating interventions in medical research; therefore, authors should complete in detail the
6
JADA n(n)
n
http://jada.ada.org
n
n 2018
description of these types of studies in an article to minimize any publication bias that might interfere with the observed results. We had expected that journals more commonly would recommend some guidelines, such as PRISMA and STROBE. In our study, the frequency of these 2 guidelines was relatively low, considering the number of analyzed journals. Results of a 2016 evaluation indicated that dental journals indexed in Scopus published 26.7% longitudinal studies and 20.5% cross-sectional studies from 2005 through 2014; during the same period, public health journals published mainly crosssectional studies (72.6%).28 Therefore, authors should be better informed and aware of the importance of reporting guidelines29,30 and should follow those guidelines independent of the journal’s request. Generally, journals with higher impact factors have greater demands from receiving more submissions, which can make them more exigent in the selection of articles for publication. In our study, the publishing of clinical cases was associated with journals having lower impact factors. This result corroborates those of a 2008 study31 in which the authors analyzed 489 submissions in a medical journal with a high impact factor. The authors demonstrated that the most commonly rejected articles were clinical cases and that they were published later in journals with lower impact factors. Results from some studies also indicated that clinical cases are cited less frequently than are other study types, which makes editors and journals limit the number of clinical cases that they publish.32,33 One should take into account some considerations regarding the limitations of the study. First, we did not assess instructions directed to editors and reviewers; therefore, no data were available about how their policies and rules are reflected in the instructions for authors. Second, the results of our study cannot be generalized across all dental journals because we assessed only the JCR database, and many other databases with indexed dental journals exist (for example, MEDLINE, SciELO, Embase, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature). However, these databases comprise the best dental journals. Despite the aforementioned limitations of our study, the quality of data and internal validation through intra- and interexaminer calibration and a pilot study demonstrate the strength and importance of this study. To our knowledge, this is the first study in which the investigators evaluated ethical and reporting guidelines according to the impact factor of JCR dental journals. As a result, our study is relevant for dental research and provides an improved understanding of the aspects involved in the development of better descriptions of study methodologies. The results presented here highlight the importance of authors following the ethical publication norms and reporting guidelines, which can be considered a strategy that would lead to an improved quality of reporting studies, addressing transparency, and using accurate methodological practices. In general, dental journals with higher impact factors implemented more ethical recommendations for authors that aim to improve methodological descriptions. They also exhibited a higher adherence to reporting guidelines, which can be considered an essential help tool, especially for researchers who are relatively new to scientific writing. We think that all dental journals, regardless of their impact factors, should be encouraged to follow ethical guidelines and provide clear and objective instructions for authors who are submitting manuscripts because publishing manuscripts with greater precision in a transparent manner also has implications for the reproduction of research and optimization of clinical applicability. CONCLUSIONS Dental journals with higher impact factors indexed in the JCR provided more ethical domains and reporting guidelines in instructions for authors than did journals with lower impact factors. However, we found few directives for reporting guidelines, with the CONSORT and ARRIVE statements being the most commonly recommended. n
Dr. Ruy Carneiro is a doctoral student, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Address correspondence to Dr. Carneiro at Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of
JADA n(n)
n
http://jada.ada.org
n
n 2018
Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Av. Antônio Carlos, 6627, Campus Pampulha / 31270-901, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil, e-mail [email protected].
7
Dr. Vieira Prado is a doctoral student, Department of Social and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Dr. Duda Deps Almeida is a doctoral student, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Dr. Almeida Pordeus is a titular professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Dr. Borges-Oliveira is an associate professor, Department of Social and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
1. Alfonso F. Data sharing: a new editorial initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editorseimplications for the editors’ network. Neth Heart J. 2017;25(5):297-303. 2. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013; 310(20):2191-2194. 3. Strech D, Metz C, Knüppel H. Do editorial policies support ethical research? A thematic text analysis of author instructions in psychiatry journals. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e97492. 4. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Available at: http://www.icmje.org. Accessed August 11, 2018. 5. Wager E, Kleinert S. Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. In: Mayer T, Steneck N, eds. Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Singapore: Imperial College Press/World Scientific Publishing; 2011:309-316. 6. Navaneetha C. Editorial policy in reporting ethical processes: a survey of ‘instructions for authors’ in international indexed dental journals. Contemp Clin Dent. 2011;2(2):84-87. 7. Hirst A, Altman GD. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):1-9. 8. Johansen M, Thomsen SF. Guidelines for reporting medical research: a critical appraisal. Int Sch Res Notices. 2016:1-7. 9. Charlier P, Bridoux V, Watier L, Ménétrier M, Grandmaison GL, Herve C. Ethics requirements and impact factor. J Med Ethics. 2012;38:253-255. 10. Hua F, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Worthington H. Surveys on reporting guideline usage in dental journals. J Dent Res. 2016;95(11):1-7. 11. Resnik DB, Tyle AM, Black JR, Kissling G. Authorship policies of scientific journals. J Med Ethics. 2016;42(3):199-202. 12. Grundy Q, Dunn AG, Bourgeois FT, Coiera E, Bero L. Prevalence of disclosed conflicts of interest in
8
Dr. Castro Martins is an adjunct professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Disclosure. None of the authors reported any disclosures. This study was supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, Brazilian Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, Minas Gerais State Research Foundation, and Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
biomedical research and associations with journal impact factors and Altmetric scores. JAMA. 2018;319(4):408409. 13. Teixeira RKC, Yamaki VN, Gonçalves TB, Botelho NM, Silva JAC. Does impact factor influence the ethics of the instructions provided to journal authors? Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2013;59(3):280-284. 14. Rigby AS. Statistical methods in epidemiology, V: towards an understanding of the kappa coefficient. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22(8):339-344. 15. Broga M, Mijaljica G, Waligora M, Keis A, Marusic A. Publication ethics in biomedical journals from countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Sci Eng Ethics. 2014;20(1):99-109. 16. Jayaratne YSN, Zwahlen RA. The evolution of dental journals from 2003 to 2012: a bibliometric analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0119503. 17. Thomson Reuters. Using bibliometrics: a guide to evaluating research performance with citation data. Available at: http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/ 325133_thomson.pdf. Accessed August 11, 2018. 18. Meerpohl JJ, Wolff RF, Antes G, Elm EV. Are pediatric open access journals promoting good publication practice? An analysis of author instructions. BMC Pediatr. 2011;11:27. 19. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/. Accessed August 11, 2018. 20. Vercellini P, Buggio L, Viganò P, Somigliana E. Peer review in medical journals: beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process. Eur J Intern Med. 2016;31:15-19. 21. Faggion CM Jr. Improving the peer-review process from the perspective of an author and reviewer. Br Dent J. 2016;220(4):167-168. 22. Nogueira TE, Gonçalves AS, Leles CR, Batista AC, Costa LR. A survey of retracted articles in dentistry. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):253.
23. Wager E. Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? MedGenMed. 2007; 9(3):16. 24. Mathur VP, Dhillon JK, Kalra G, Sharma A, Mathur R. Survey of instructions to authors in Indian and British dental journals with respect to ethical guidelines. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2013;31:107-112. 25. Cooper RJ, Gupta M, Wilkes MS, Hoffman JR. Conflict of interest disclosure policies and practices in peer-reviewed biomedical journals. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(12):1248-1252. 26. Weber WEJ, Merino JG, Loder E. Trial registration 10 years on. BMJ. 2015;351:h3572. 27. Sims MT, Checketts JX, Wayant C, Vassar M. Requirements for trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines in critical care journals: a metaepidemiological study of journals’ instructions for authors. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2017;16(1):55-65. 28. Celeste RK, Broadbent J, Moyses SJ. Half-century of dental public health research: bibliometric analysis of world scientific trends. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2016;44(6):557-563. 29. Samaan Z, Mbuagbaw L, Kosa D, et al. A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2013;6:169188. 30. Sarkis-Onofrea R, Cencia MS, Demarcoa FF, et al. Use of guidelines to improve the quality and transparency of reporting oral health research. J Dent. 2015;43(4):397-404. 31. Armstrong AW, Idriss SZ, Kimball AB, Bernhard JD. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;58(4): 632-635. 32. Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA. 2005;293(19):2362-2366. 33. Albrecht J, Werth VP, Bigby M. The role of case reports in evidence-based practice, with suggestions for improving their reporting. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009; 60(3):412-418.
JADA n(n)
n
http://jada.ada.org
n
n 2018
A survey of dental journal methodological practices Reporting guidelines and ethical policies Natália Cristina Ruy Carneiro, MSc, Phd candidate; Heloisa Vieira Prado, MSc, Phd candidate; Tahyná Duda Deps Almeida, MSc, Phd candidate; Isabela Almeida Pordeus, DDS, MSc, PhD; Ana Cristina Borges-Oliveira, DDS, MSc, PhD; Carolina Castro Martins, DDS, MSc, PhD ABSTRACT Background. The authors evaluated instructions for author norms among existing dental journals and analyzed whether these journals address the practice of reporting guidelines and ethics policies. Methods. The authors evaluated 87 journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (Thomson Reuters). The authors extracted information regarding the journals from the Journal Citation Reports database and from the instructions for authors of each journal. The authors conducted bivariate analysis to compare the methodological policy issues of journals with higher and those with lower impact factors ( 1.452 and 1.436, respectively). Results. Among journals, 44 (50.6%) required the use of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, 22 (25.3%) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, 21 (24.1%) Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments, 17 (19.5%) STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology, 6 (6.9%) Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, 3 (3.4%) Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and 1 (1.1%) Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials. No journals required STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies. Journals with higher impact factors had more instructions related to the peer review process (P ¼ .027), redundant publication (P < .001), authorship policy (P ¼ .024), contributorship policy (P < .001), ethical conduct of biomedical research with human participants (P ¼ .021), ethical conduct of biomedical research with nonhuman participants (P ¼ .001), registration of clinical trials (P ¼ .004), and conflicts involving editors as authors in their own journals (P < .001) than did journals with lower impact factors. The submission of clinical case studies was significantly more prevalent in journals with lower impact factors (P ¼ .008). Conclusions. Journals with higher impact factors have more rules regarding publication policies. Practical Implications. Journals with higher impact factors are stricter regarding publication policies than are journals with lower impact factors. Authors should be careful with the instructions for authors and plan studies with high methodological quality to publish their studies in a scientific journal. Key Words. Guideline adherence; ethics; epidemiology; dentistry.
JADA 2018:n(n):n-n https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2018.08.008
E
thical policies are important to ensuring the credibility and the transparency of scientific journals.1 The Declaration of Helsinki states that studies should be approved by an independent research ethics committee and that researchers should seek informed consent from participants.2,3 The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics have addressed these principles and developed some recommendations to review best practices and ethical standards in the conduct and reporting of research.3-5 The ICMJE encourages authors to follow ethical recommendations, although it lacks the authority to monitor them. Therefore, ethical recommendations should be used in conjunction with a
JADA n(n)
n
http://jada.ada.org
n
n 2018
Copyright ª 2018 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
1
journal’s instructions for authors.4 In 2011, Navaneetha6 suggested that journals should improve ethical policies in their instructions for authors, considering the importance of these ethical aspects to scientific publications. However, only 45.2% of dental journals required approval from an ethics committee, and only 32.5% of journals expected authors to state that they had conducted research according to the Declaration of Helsinki.6 Reporting guidelines also are tools that help improve the quality of medical and health research. Typically presented in the form of a checklist, flowchart, or explicit text, these guidelines specify the essential items necessary for the clear and transparent description of the research performed and its results.7,8 Such guidelines are based on empirical evidence and reflect the consensus opinions of experts. Moreover, reporting guidelines provide instructions for authors regarding scientific writing and the organization of manuscripts.7 In total, more than 200 different reporting guidelines are listed in the EQUATOR Network (http://www.equator-network.org/), an international database that seeks to improve the reliability and value of published health research literature. According to results in the literature, the impact factors of journals are associated directly with their ethics requirements.9-12 Therefore, journals with higher-quality editorial standards are believed to admit better designed articles that follow strict criteria at the beginning of the research.13 Therefore, given the findings that ethical issues and reporting guidelines are important methodological tools, it is important to understand how dental journals conduct their editorial policies. Our aim in this study was to evaluate the instructions for authors of dental journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) (Thomson Reuters) and to report whether these journals address the practice of reporting guidelines and ethics policies according to their impact factor. METHODS In this original study, we evaluated all dental journals indexed in the JCR database. This database presents bibliometric indicators of scientific journals.
ABBREVIATION KEY ARRIVE: Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments. CONSORT: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. ICMJE: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JCR: Journal Citation Reports. NA: Not applicable. PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. STROBE: STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology.
2
Search strategy We performed an electronic search of the JCR database in 2018 by searching on the terms dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine. Initially, we found 90 dentistry journals indexed. We generated a list of the indexed journals and excluded journals not electronically available and those not in English. Two of us (N.C.R.C., H.V.P.) then extracted journal information independently; the researchers were trained previously to extract data according to a structured data form (described later). The calibration process consisted of analyzing the first sequential 25 journals indexed in JCR. Observed k test scores ranged from 0.854 to 0.977, which is considered to be a good level of agreement.14 The researchers resolved disagreements by means of discussion and consensus. When they reached good agreement (k > 0.8), the researchers independently extracted information from the remaining journals. The 2 researchers checked any divergence regarding items extracted and subsequently resolved the divergence by means of discussion and consensus. Data extraction We created a form (Excel, Microsoft) to extract the information. We extracted information regarding journals from the JCR database, which we followed by analyzing the online guidelines or instructions for authors. Data collected from the JCR Web site included journal name, total citations, impact factor, impact factor over the past 5 years, volumes published per year, country, and geographic location. After extracting the information from JCR, we electronically searched each journal and analyzed the guidelines or instructions for authors. We also analyzed any ethics policy content presented in the guidelines or instructions for authors of each journal. We then compiled a list of the most important ethical themes on the basis of the study by Broga and colleagues,15 which involved a checklist from the International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications and guidelines for ethical publication from ICMJE, World Association of Medical Editors, and Committee on Publication Ethics. We extracted ethics policies from the guidelines or instructions for authors of each journal. We grouped them into the following categories: endorsement of international standards, peer review process, redundant publication, authorship policy, contributorship policy, conflicts of interest, JADA n(n)
n
http://jada.ada.org
n
n 2018
requirements for the disclosure of sources of financial support, requirements for the ethical conduct of biomedical research with human and nonhuman participants, ethical review by an institutional review board, mandatory registration of clinical trials, privacy rights and confidentiality statements, copyright or license to publish, image manipulation, and conflicts of editors as authors in their own journals.15 In addition, we extracted whether the journal requested the authors to use 1 of the following guidelines: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT); STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies; STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE); Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA); Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials; Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology; and Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE). Moreover, we identified reference to the EQUATOR Network (http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/) as a source of information for reporting guidelines. Finally, we extracted any other possible guidelines if the journal required them. We grouped the types of articles accepted for publication into several categories. These categories were original articles (epidemiologic studies, observational cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, cohort studies, clinical trials), systematic reviews, laboratory studies or studies in animals, literature reviews, clinical cases or case series, letters to the editor, and editorials. When additional data were required, or if they were not available in the guidelines or instructions for authors, we searched in other sections of the journal Web site until we found the necessary information. Apart from the guidelines or instructions for authors, other analyzed sections included “About this journal” and “Journal menu.” Data analysis We analyzed data by using software (SPSS for Windows, Version 23.0, SPSS), and we performed a descriptive analysis. We used a bivariate analysis through c2 testing (P < .05) to determine the relationship between exposure (impact factor) and the independent variables. We grouped journals into those with higher or lower impact factors ( 1.452 and 1.436, respectively). We determined the cutoff point by using the median of all journals because the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test result showed that journal impact factor does not follow a normal distribution (P < .05). RESULTS Among the 90 dentistry journals previously identified in the JCR database, we excluded 3 from the study: 1 had no Web site available, and the other 2 were not in English. As a result, all journals (n ¼ 87) included in our study provided online instructions for authors and used an online submission system for processing manuscripts. Overall, 45 journals (51.7%) had impact factors higher than 1.452 (on a scale of 0.423 to 4.794). Regarding the requirement of reporting guidelines, 44 journals (50.6%) required the use of CONSORT, 22 (25.3%) PRISMA, 21 (24.1%) ARRIVE, 17 (19.5%) STROBE, 6 (6.9%) Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, 3 (3.4%) Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, 1 (1.1%) Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials; no journals required STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies. We also observed that 11 of the included journals (12.6%) provided directions for using the EQUATOR Network site as an option for consulting other existing guidelines. Table 115 presents the endorsement of ethical policies according to the impact factor of journals included in our study. We observed a statistically significant difference in the presence of ethical policies in journals with higher impact factors. Furthermore, peer review process (P ¼ .027), redundant publication (P < .001), authorship policy (P ¼ .024), contributorship policy (P < .001), ethical conduct of biomedical research with human participants (P ¼ .021), ethical conduct of biomedical research with nonhuman participants (P ¼ .001), registration of clinical trials (P ¼ .004), and conflicts regarding editors as authors in their own journals (P < .001) were more prevalent in journals with higher impact factors (Table 1).15 Table 2 presents the types of studies accepted for review and the impact factors of included dentistry journals. All journals accepted the submission of original articles and systematic reviews. Clinical cases were significantly more prevalent in journals with lower impact factors (P ¼ .008). JADA n(n)
n
http://jada.ada.org
n
n 2018
3
Table 1. Ethics policies and impact factors of dentistry journals (Journal Citation Reports) (n ¼ 87). IMPACT FACTOR GREATER IMPACT FACTOR THAN OR EQUAL TO LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.452 NO. (%) 1.436 NO. (%) P VALUE†
ETHICS POLICY* Endorsement of International Standards‡ Yes
25 (55.6)
25 (59.5)
No
20 (44.4)
17 (40.5)
38 (84.4)
7 (15.6)
27 (64.3)
15 (35.7)
35 (77.8)
10 (22.2)
17 (40.5)
25 (59.5)
Yes
39 (86.7)
28 (66.7)
No
6 (13.3)
14 (33.3)
Yes
37 (82.2)
17 (40.5)
No
8 (17.8)
25 (59.5)
43 (95.6)
36 (85.7)
2 (4.4)
6 (14.3)
Yes
30 (66.7)
31 (73.8)
No
15 (33.3)
11 (26.2)
Yes
40 (88.9)
29 (69.0)
No
5 (11.1)
13 (31.0)
38 (84.4)
22 (52.4)
7 (15.6)
20 (47.6)
Yes
35 (77.8)
32 (76.2)
No
10 (22.2)
10 (23.8)
Yes
34 (75.6)
19 (45.2)
No
11 (24.4)
.438
Peer Review Process§ Yes No Redundant Publication
{
Yes No Authorship Policy
.027
< .001
#
.024
Contributorship Policy** < .001
Conflicts of Interest†† Yes No Disclosure of Sources of Financial Support
.112
‡‡
.312
Ethical Conduct of Biomedical Research With Human Participants§§ .021
Ethical Conduct of Biomedical Research With Nonhuman Participants{{ Yes No Ethics Committee Approval
.001
##
.531
Registration of Clinical Trials*** .004
23 (54.8)
* Ethical policies followed the criteria of the study by Broga and colleagues, as listed for each policy. † c2 test (5% significance level). ‡ Explicit statement of the journal’s conformance with international editorial standards. § General information about the process of evaluating manuscripts and a summary of the peer review process. { Policy on article submissions in print or electronic media and policy on how such occurrences are handled. # Policy or definition of authorship, including ethical position on ghost and gift authorship. ** Clear rules on the declaration of contributorship of each coauthor. †† Disclosure policy of financial and personal relationships that could influence (bias) actions inappropriately. ‡‡ Statement in the journal instructions about institutions and grants supporting the publication. §§ Statement of ethical biomedical research with human participants. {{ Statement of ethical biomedical research with nonhuman participants. ## Statement that submitted articles must state whether the study received approval from a relevant ethics committee. *** Statement on mandatory registration of clinical trials. ††† Policy on proper use of personal identifiable information. ‡‡‡ Instructions regarding assignment of copyright or license to publish. §§§ Instructions and requirements regarding processing digital images and policy for addressing image manipulation. {{{ Policy on how the journal manages research in which the editor is an author. 15
4
JADA n(n)
n
http://jada.ada.org
n
n 2018
Table 1. Continued IMPACT FACTOR GREATER IMPACT FACTOR THAN OR EQUAL TO LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.452 NO. (%) 1.436 NO. (%) P VALUE†
ETHICS POLICY* Privacy Rights††† Yes
25 (55.6)
15 (35.7)
No
20 (44.4)
27 (64.3)
Yes
39 (86.7)
36 (85.7)
No
6 (13.3)
6 (14.3)
Yes
38 (84.4)
33 (78.6)
No
7 (15.6)
9 (21.4)
.050
Copyright License‡‡‡ .571
Image Manipulation§§§ .334
Conflicts of Editors as Authors in Own Journals{{{ Yes
23 (51.1)
4 (9.5)
No
22 (48.9)
38 (90.5)
< .001
DISCUSSION We chose JCR for searching dental journals because it is an international database that allows researchers to evaluate and compare journals according to citations and article counts. Investigators can use such bibliometric data to evaluate the impact of the articles present in each journal, as well as the overall performance of each journal.16,17 Furthermore, all journals had their own Web sites wherein publication norms were available and accessible for authors. On the basis of our findings, the presence of peer review, redundant publication, authorship and contributorship policy, the ethical conduct of biomedical research with human and nonhuman participants, registration of clinical trials, and conflicts of editors as authors were associated statistically with journals that had high impact factors. Ethical policies are essential for health publications because they are considered to be a means of enhancing the reporting quality of biomedical studies.18 The ICMJE also recommends these domains to create more accurate, clear, reproducible, and unbiased journal articles.19 Peer review is an important process in the assessment of manuscript quality and suitability before publication in a specific journal. This process also prevents the publication of unreliable data, thereby improving study reporting.20 Generally, high-level scientific journals adopt this system,21 which corroborates the results of our study. Reviewers have a great responsibility to provide constructive and useful comments to a study, which is why it is important that journals clearly state how the peer review process occurs in their instruction for authors. It can inform authors that the review process will be conducted in a transparent and impartial way, without any personal influence from the reviewers. An additional aspect raised by the results of our study concerns redundant publication. The results suggest that this ethical issue is more present in journals with higher impact factors. According to Nogueira and colleagues,22 redundant publication and plagiarism are reported more commonly in articles published by journals with fewer than 2.0 cites per document. It is thought that journals with lower impact factors do not use software routinely to detect plagiarism and redundant publication and that journals with higher impact factors prevent the replication of texts. Therefore, readers and reviewers should be aware that a text or article may be original or simply a replication of another article. If this occurs, authors should be instructed to provide a clear statement or a reference that a specific article is being republished. According to the results of our study, journals with higher impact factors had more policies related to authorship and contributorship. In a study in which the investigators used a methodology similar to that of our study, they analyzed 600 random journals from JCR. The authors searched for information about author or contributor or journal policies and determined that journals that had an authorship policy had a significantly higher mean impact factor (2.20) than did those without a policy (1.43; P ¼ .006). Authorship (99.7%) and contributorship (94.7%) were the most frequent JADA n(n)
n
http://jada.ada.org
n
n 2018
5
Table 2. Requested types of studies and impact factors of dentistry journals (Journal Citation Reports) (n ¼ 87).
REQUESTED TYPES OF STUDIES
IMPACT FACTOR IMPACT FACTOR GREATER THAN OR LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO EQUAL TO 1.452, NO. (%) 1.436, NO. (%) P VALUE*
Original Articles† Yes
45 (100.0)
42 (100.0)
No
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
Yes
45 (100.0)
42 (100.0)
No
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
Yes
43 (95.6)
42 (100.0)
No
2 (4.4)
0 (0.0)
Yes
30 (66.7)
33 (78.6)
No
15 (33.3)
9 (21.4)
Yes
26 (57.8)
35 (83.3)
No
19 (42.2)
7 (16.7)
Yes
28 (62.2)
26 (61.9)
No
17 (37.8)
16 (38.1)
Yes
13 (28.9)
7 (16.7)
No
32 (71.1)
35 (83.3)
NA‡
Systematic Reviews NA
Laboratory Studies and Studies in Animals .265
Literature Reviews .158
Clinical Cases .008
Letters to the Editor .575
Editorials .136
* c test (5% significance level). † Includes epidemiologic cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, cohort studies, and clinical trials. ‡ NA: Not applicable. 2
policy types.11 Furthermore, authorship and contributorship also play a relevant role in ethics policies, which can improve the accuracy, fairness, and transparency of author listings.23 Dental journals that provide clear instructions for authors regarding the ethical conduct of biomedical research with human and nonhuman participants also tended to have higher impact factors, which may be due to the greater exigency and rigor of the publication process of such journals.13 Mathur and colleagues24 analyzed editorial instructions related to ethical requirements for authors in Indian and British dental journals and determined that a marked proportion of these journals did not provide information about ethical issues related to research involving humans and animals. Consequently, the authors concluded that it should be mandatory to report this information in the instructions for authors to ensure that these types of policies were followed, attesting that no misconduct occurred. Addressing conflicts of interest in scientific publications has become common.25 However, conflicts of interest between journal reviewers and editors are equally important because these groups control decisions regarding the publication of articles and content of publications, thereby having an enormous effect on the scientific literature.25 Furthermore, editors of medical journals have expressed that requiring clinical trial registration is the most valuable method for securing unbiased research reports26 because it allows for the identification of outcome bias or other deviations from the study protocol.26,27 In our study, we determined that dental journals with higher impact factors had more policies regarding the registration of clinical trials. Therefore, such journals may have greater demands regarding bias control and the methodological quality of their manuscripts. The CONSORT statement was the most common reporting guideline journal requested. Clinical trials are considered the reference standard for evaluating interventions in medical research; therefore, authors should complete in detail the
6
JADA n(n)
n
http://jada.ada.org
n
n 2018
description of these types of studies in an article to minimize any publication bias that might interfere with the observed results. We had expected that journals more commonly would recommend some guidelines, such as PRISMA and STROBE. In our study, the frequency of these 2 guidelines was relatively low, considering the number of analyzed journals. Results of a 2016 evaluation indicated that dental journals indexed in Scopus published 26.7% longitudinal studies and 20.5% cross-sectional studies from 2005 through 2014; during the same period, public health journals published mainly crosssectional studies (72.6%).28 Therefore, authors should be better informed and aware of the importance of reporting guidelines29,30 and should follow those guidelines independent of the journal’s request. Generally, journals with higher impact factors have greater demands from receiving more submissions, which can make them more exigent in the selection of articles for publication. In our study, the publishing of clinical cases was associated with journals having lower impact factors. This result corroborates those of a 2008 study31 in which the authors analyzed 489 submissions in a medical journal with a high impact factor. The authors demonstrated that the most commonly rejected articles were clinical cases and that they were published later in journals with lower impact factors. Results from some studies also indicated that clinical cases are cited less frequently than are other study types, which makes editors and journals limit the number of clinical cases that they publish.32,33 One should take into account some considerations regarding the limitations of the study. First, we did not assess instructions directed to editors and reviewers; therefore, no data were available about how their policies and rules are reflected in the instructions for authors. Second, the results of our study cannot be generalized across all dental journals because we assessed only the JCR database, and many other databases with indexed dental journals exist (for example, MEDLINE, SciELO, Embase, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature). However, these databases comprise the best dental journals. Despite the aforementioned limitations of our study, the quality of data and internal validation through intra- and interexaminer calibration and a pilot study demonstrate the strength and importance of this study. To our knowledge, this is the first study in which the investigators evaluated ethical and reporting guidelines according to the impact factor of JCR dental journals. As a result, our study is relevant for dental research and provides an improved understanding of the aspects involved in the development of better descriptions of study methodologies. The results presented here highlight the importance of authors following the ethical publication norms and reporting guidelines, which can be considered a strategy that would lead to an improved quality of reporting studies, addressing transparency, and using accurate methodological practices. In general, dental journals with higher impact factors implemented more ethical recommendations for authors that aim to improve methodological descriptions. They also exhibited a higher adherence to reporting guidelines, which can be considered an essential help tool, especially for researchers who are relatively new to scientific writing. We think that all dental journals, regardless of their impact factors, should be encouraged to follow ethical guidelines and provide clear and objective instructions for authors who are submitting manuscripts because publishing manuscripts with greater precision in a transparent manner also has implications for the reproduction of research and optimization of clinical applicability. CONCLUSIONS Dental journals with higher impact factors indexed in the JCR provided more ethical domains and reporting guidelines in instructions for authors than did journals with lower impact factors. However, we found few directives for reporting guidelines, with the CONSORT and ARRIVE statements being the most commonly recommended. n
Dr. Ruy Carneiro is a doctoral student, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Address correspondence to Dr. Carneiro at Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of
JADA n(n)
n
http://jada.ada.org
n
n 2018
Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Av. Antônio Carlos, 6627, Campus Pampulha / 31270-901, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil, e-mail [email protected].
7
Dr. Vieira Prado is a doctoral student, Department of Social and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Dr. Duda Deps Almeida is a doctoral student, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Dr. Almeida Pordeus is a titular professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Dr. Borges-Oliveira is an associate professor, Department of Social and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
1. Alfonso F. Data sharing: a new editorial initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editorseimplications for the editors’ network. Neth Heart J. 2017;25(5):297-303. 2. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013; 310(20):2191-2194. 3. Strech D, Metz C, Knüppel H. Do editorial policies support ethical research? A thematic text analysis of author instructions in psychiatry journals. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e97492. 4. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Available at: http://www.icmje.org. Accessed August 11, 2018. 5. Wager E, Kleinert S. Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. In: Mayer T, Steneck N, eds. Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Singapore: Imperial College Press/World Scientific Publishing; 2011:309-316. 6. Navaneetha C. Editorial policy in reporting ethical processes: a survey of ‘instructions for authors’ in international indexed dental journals. Contemp Clin Dent. 2011;2(2):84-87. 7. Hirst A, Altman GD. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):1-9. 8. Johansen M, Thomsen SF. Guidelines for reporting medical research: a critical appraisal. Int Sch Res Notices. 2016:1-7. 9. Charlier P, Bridoux V, Watier L, Ménétrier M, Grandmaison GL, Herve C. Ethics requirements and impact factor. J Med Ethics. 2012;38:253-255. 10. Hua F, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Worthington H. Surveys on reporting guideline usage in dental journals. J Dent Res. 2016;95(11):1-7. 11. Resnik DB, Tyle AM, Black JR, Kissling G. Authorship policies of scientific journals. J Med Ethics. 2016;42(3):199-202. 12. Grundy Q, Dunn AG, Bourgeois FT, Coiera E, Bero L. Prevalence of disclosed conflicts of interest in
8
Dr. Castro Martins is an adjunct professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Disclosure. None of the authors reported any disclosures. This study was supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, Brazilian Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, Minas Gerais State Research Foundation, and Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
biomedical research and associations with journal impact factors and Altmetric scores. JAMA. 2018;319(4):408409. 13. Teixeira RKC, Yamaki VN, Gonçalves TB, Botelho NM, Silva JAC. Does impact factor influence the ethics of the instructions provided to journal authors? Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2013;59(3):280-284. 14. Rigby AS. Statistical methods in epidemiology, V: towards an understanding of the kappa coefficient. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22(8):339-344. 15. Broga M, Mijaljica G, Waligora M, Keis A, Marusic A. Publication ethics in biomedical journals from countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Sci Eng Ethics. 2014;20(1):99-109. 16. Jayaratne YSN, Zwahlen RA. The evolution of dental journals from 2003 to 2012: a bibliometric analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0119503. 17. Thomson Reuters. Using bibliometrics: a guide to evaluating research performance with citation data. Available at: http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/ 325133_thomson.pdf. Accessed August 11, 2018. 18. Meerpohl JJ, Wolff RF, Antes G, Elm EV. Are pediatric open access journals promoting good publication practice? An analysis of author instructions. BMC Pediatr. 2011;11:27. 19. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/. Accessed August 11, 2018. 20. Vercellini P, Buggio L, Viganò P, Somigliana E. Peer review in medical journals: beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process. Eur J Intern Med. 2016;31:15-19. 21. Faggion CM Jr. Improving the peer-review process from the perspective of an author and reviewer. Br Dent J. 2016;220(4):167-168. 22. Nogueira TE, Gonçalves AS, Leles CR, Batista AC, Costa LR. A survey of retracted articles in dentistry. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):253.
23. Wager E. Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? MedGenMed. 2007; 9(3):16. 24. Mathur VP, Dhillon JK, Kalra G, Sharma A, Mathur R. Survey of instructions to authors in Indian and British dental journals with respect to ethical guidelines. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2013;31:107-112. 25. Cooper RJ, Gupta M, Wilkes MS, Hoffman JR. Conflict of interest disclosure policies and practices in peer-reviewed biomedical journals. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(12):1248-1252. 26. Weber WEJ, Merino JG, Loder E. Trial registration 10 years on. BMJ. 2015;351:h3572. 27. Sims MT, Checketts JX, Wayant C, Vassar M. Requirements for trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines in critical care journals: a metaepidemiological study of journals’ instructions for authors. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2017;16(1):55-65. 28. Celeste RK, Broadbent J, Moyses SJ. Half-century of dental public health research: bibliometric analysis of world scientific trends. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2016;44(6):557-563. 29. Samaan Z, Mbuagbaw L, Kosa D, et al. A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2013;6:169188. 30. Sarkis-Onofrea R, Cencia MS, Demarcoa FF, et al. Use of guidelines to improve the quality and transparency of reporting oral health research. J Dent. 2015;43(4):397-404. 31. Armstrong AW, Idriss SZ, Kimball AB, Bernhard JD. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;58(4): 632-635. 32. Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA. 2005;293(19):2362-2366. 33. Albrecht J, Werth VP, Bigby M. The role of case reports in evidence-based practice, with suggestions for improving their reporting. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009; 60(3):412-418.
JADA n(n)
n
http://jada.ada.org
n
n 2018